I will relent to you (especially Augustine) concerning Hermeneutics 101 (including Hebrews). If those views are incorrect then be they anathema, so if I may recurs my argument and state it in other form and fashion.



"The new in the old contained, the old in the new explained." This is nothing more than Hermeneutics 101:
 The N.T. interprets the O.T.
 The Epistles interpret the Gospels
 The universal interprets the local
 The didactic interprets the symbolic

I think the definitions and implications of the word “interprets” are fully known to you, but just for kicks:
- If I give you a sentence consisting of all Russian words. It will be of little use to you (if you don’t speak Russian). Sure you will make out some facts like that it is some sort of a Cyrillic dialect and that it is a sentence (begins w/ capital letter, period). However if I interpret that sentence, that congloboration of symbols will have meaning and as long as that interpretation is sound in your mind, those particular Cyrillic symbols can never loose their meaning (even though you may still have no knowledge of Russian).
- Isaiah 53 mentioned something about some dude who was humble and in a real social/ physical mess because of others. And before the fullness of revelation came, that passage was nothing more then that. But in light of the Gospels, does Isaiah 53 still remain a mention about some dude who was humble and in a real mess. By all means no! That passage now teaches the same identical type of doctrine as the Epistles do.


..The truths found in the Psalms are "shadows" and "types" of the coming of Jesus…

Therefore, my question to you is, “When you read the OT (in which Psalms is found), do you still see only “shadows” and “types”?” Surely, we would assume a shadow to be inferior to reality, so if OT to us is only but a “shadow” would we not epitomize the NT above the OT? After all, if we have with us the Revelation of the Truth (ie NT), why do we still need to pay attention to the “shadows”?

”The new in the old contained…” That means: OT >= NT (the “container” must be bigger then the contents it contains). We might want to be careful in using the word “shadow” here.

“…the old in the new explained…” For something to be explained it must first be convoluted, however, if now it is explained then it is convoluted no more. Now, therefore, it has meaning which it did not have before.

Therefore, I disagree with this premise

The point being, that the singing of the Psalms only is insufficient to worship God because they lack the fullness of meaning in and of themselves of the truth of God's redemption in Christ Jesus.

because before, that which was shadow, in the old was explained by the new. So it is impossible to sing psalms apart from that explanation which was presented by the NT.

courteous when I ,
jenya andreyev